[stevendhansen]

Robert Zubrin has discussed the "moon first" strategy, and has made the interesting observation that many of the pro arguments come from entrenched space industries looking to make a buck on existing hardware. The argument being "we already build parts to go to the moon, so let's just do that."

Personally I would love to see both outcomes. But given a limited budget, going to Mars has the advantage of providing a (admittedly risky and uncertain) possibility of extending the survival of the human race, where as going back to the moon seems to provide more indirect benefits.

[Nomentatus]

Given a limited budget, lifting everything from earth, other than for a quick stunt mission to mars, is not economical. Nearly all the mass and elements needed - everything but hydrogen - is on the moon already. And hydrogen (water) may just be available too, at the poles.